An organization by the name WallBuilders Presentations has a mission to present America's forgotten history and heroes. They do so through a lens focusing on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was formed. However, they have met a roadblock.
WallBuilders in the summer of 2023 wanted to launch a massive advertising campaign in the DC area to publish its name and its strong mission of opening the public's eye to the role of faith in the formation of our country. They were going to go about this advertising plan by using WMATA buses to spread the messages. Much of the DC metropolitan population relies on the WMATA buses for transportation daily so the messages would be seen by a large population. Included in the advertisements were religious messages. One ad had a picture of George Washington kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge with the word, “Christian?” under the image with the Wallbuilders website address. When proposed to WMATA it was swiftly rejected because it was a “issue ad that is intended to influence members of the public on an issue on which there are varying opinions.” WallBuilders then reflected on the rejection and decided to remove the word “Christian?” under the image. However yet again the ads were denied. There was no clarification received on the context behind “varying opinions”.
WMATA is known for permitting advertisements that promote other organizations that have controversial takes and issues. This can be seen with them permitting an ad about the book of Mormon that harshly mocks the Mormon Church. Along with promotions involving the Catholic University of America. The main issue at hand being WMATA rejecting a religious ad possibly violating the First Amendment’s protection of religion. It could also possibly be inferred that WallBuilders constitutional rights are being violated under the Free Exercise clause of the First amendment. Are WMATA discriminating against certain religious advertisements? It also must be kept in mind these buses are in a public setting.
It also must be taken into consideration that WMATA has been through issues like this in the past. The Supreme Court in 2020 declined to take up a challenge on a ban on religious advertising by WMATA. This issue dates to 2017 when a Christmas themed ad campaign with some religious themes was rejected. There was also an ad that was submitted in 2015 that was rejected that depicted the Prophet Muhammad. These rulings were upheld in favor of WMATA but still are met with harsh resistance and appeals. In an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, he wrote in reaction to the supreme court not hearing the case about Christmas related religious advertising in the WMATA, “the ban on religious advertising is viewpoint discrimination by a governmental authority and a violation of the first amendment”.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects religious expression. In this case WallBuilders is having its rights violated. By saying they ban all religious advertisements is a cheap cop out to me. It makes them look good on the outside but ultimately is violating their First Amendment rights. These ads simply have a website URL and a short message. No passenger on one of these buses is made to go out of their way to go to the website. Nobody is being forced to check out their website or become a member of the WallBuilders. There's also no direct threat of such advertisements to the public. The Free Exercise Clause was put into effect to make sure Americans could have their voices heard and express themselves without feeling persecuted. By denying WallBuilders this right to further their reach and message of their organization it is a direct violation of their rights. WMATA is in theory basically just censoring any organization that wants to try to push a message that is remotely religious but allowing some that they seem fit. This is also very dangerous in my opinion as if this is allowed to be swept under the rug, we could see these issues continue to spring up and be abused in other public settings. The First Amendment doesn’t play favorites, it makes sure that any voice no matter the message is heard. Voices should not be silenced in public forums."Rejecting a faith based advertising banner by labeling it an "issue ad," while accepting other ads such as those promoting a "Social Justice School" and "Earth Day," is clearly hypocriticaldiscriminatory, and illegal. WMATA must support the freedoms provided in the First Amendment rather than silence Americans through censorship" said First Liberty Senior Councilman Jermey Dys.
https://firstliberty.org/cases/wallbuilders/
https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WallBuilders-Federal-Complaint_Redacted.pdfchristian-organization-sues-d-c-metro-for-rejecting-ads
https://washingtonstand.com/news/wallbuilders-supported-by-aclu-sues-dc-metro-for-rejecting-bus-ads
Overall Harry you do a good job framing your argument and points, but I disagree with the conclusion. The organization has made a private decision to not allow advertisements that may conflict with their purpose or be controversial, and in my understanding is their decision to make. No one is saying that WallBuilders cannot advertise, just the WMTA is deciding against it. They use a facially neutral policy that bans advertisements with religious purpose and viewpoints, since it could be interpreted as free exercise. The WallBuilder group should simply seek another setting to advertise, like a billboard or social media. I do not believe this is viewpoint discrimination since it does not seem to be an open forum, as it is not created to open discussion, and it can easily be interpreted that the WMTA directly approves of the WallBuilder message, which would be establishment.
ReplyDeleteHi Harry,
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting post. I agree with you that WallBuilders is having their first Amendment rights violated. Also, Harry makes a very good point that they allow other forms of religious beliefs and promoting other organizations. Also, no one is being forced to go to the website that is on the ad. It is there for if people want to use it. WallBuilders should be able to utilize their freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Harry, this was a very interesting post. Since WMATA is a public transit agency, I think that allowing WallBuilders’ advertisement, even after the specific word “Christian” was removed, could potentially be seen as a state establishment of religion, in which I would argue that WMATA was correct in denying the organization the ability to use their service to carry out their advertising campaign. However, because WMATA has previously allowed other controversial advertisements about religion, but rejected the advertisements of WallBuilders and other religious organizations, it appears that the transit agency is not acting neutral in the way that a government agency should regarding matters of religion. The First Amendment prohibits the government from privileging one religion over another, and in this case, it appears that advertisements from certain religious groups were privileged over those of other religious organizations. Therefore, I do agree with you that the free exercise rights of WMATA were violated.
ReplyDeleteHarry,
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing attention to this case! I agree with previous commenters that the rejection of WallBuilders' advertisements would be right and just under the circumstance that they had not approved any prior controversial/religious advertisement to avoid an establishment of religion. It reminds me of the cases brought up regarding religious exemptions for the vaccine and birth control administration. However, the rejection of WallBuilders' advertisements, even after modifications to accommodate WMATA's concerns, raises questions about the organization's impartiality in permitting diverse viewpoints - especially based on the precedent they set by allowing such advertisements in the past. The inconsistency in accepting ads with controversial themes while disallowing religious messages suggests a discriminatory practice that potentially infringes upon the First Amendment's protection of religious expression and exercise. Your argument compellingly articulates how WMATA's actions may constitute viewpoint discrimination, as highlighted by Justice Gorsuch's opinion regarding the ban on religious advertising. The Free Exercise Clause exists precisely to safeguard individuals and organizations from such infringements on their rights to express their beliefs. Great post!
Harry,
ReplyDeleteThis was a great case to analyze being that it incorporates the topics of both "free exercise" rights as well as public censorship. I believe it is relevant to consider Supreme Court case, Stone V Graham (1980), which declared it unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments on public school walls. Despite the Kentucky legislature claiming that the statue held a secular purpose and "is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization," the majority held it a form of establishment.
Like Kentucky, the WallBuilders are fostering a form of establishment while hiding behind the claim of American origin, and with that, I would have to disagree with your opinion.